In 2017, the Heising-Simons Foundation—a family foundation that works in climate and clean energy, science, education and human rightsestablished the 51 Pegasi b Fellowship to support early-career astronomers engaged in planetary research. Just over a year later, the Foundation announced it would overhaul the selection process for the program because, out of 12 fellowships awarded in the program's first two years, only two went to female scientists. Over the next year, the Foundation worked with Joyce Yen, director of the University of Washington's ADVANCE Center for Institutional Change, to modify the application and evaluation process.
“People underestimate how impactful it is when those in power say, ‘Maybe we don’t have it right. We’re not achieving what we had hoped. We’re okay going to go back to the drawing board and start over again,’” Yen told Laboratory Equipment. “The Heising-Simons Foundation was willing to invest the time, resources and people power to get better. They were open and honest about it.”
Laboratory Equipment recently spoke with Yen for this month’s “Women in Science” about the changes the Foundation implemented, the lessons she learned along the way, and the best ways to boost diversity across all STEM fields.
LE: What are some of the changes you made to the application and evaluation process that resulted in an uptick in fellowships for women the following year?
Yen: Previously, postdoctoral researchers would apply through the universities they wanted to work at. The universities would then pick which applications to send to the Heising-Simons Foundation. We changed the process so that postdoctoral researchers would apply directly to the Foundation, which would then forward those applications to the relevant universities. This keeps the universities involved in the selection process, but also increased the percentage of female applicants from less than 25% to more than 30%.
Part of overhauling the process involved changes to the application itself. One really important question we spent time evaluating was, “What exactly are you looking for, and do your materials provide that information?” Everyone uses their own criteria to evaluate materials so there ends up being a mismatch of priorities. If you are not explicit about what you are going to evaluate, then applicants’ materials may not have what you need resulting in evaluators filling in the blanks—potentially making incorrect assumptions and presumptions. In the end, we made sure the things the Foundation wanted to evaluate were actually in the application materials, and that made a significant difference.
LE: Now that you have revisited the selection process with diversity in mind, what are some best practices you can share for other organizations?
Yen: We found that evaluation rubrics are underutilized even though they are not a new idea. Rubrics ask us to clarify what we are really interested in, and help determine along multiple dimensions if applications are high-quality or not. Having these coversations ahead of time while establishing the rubric allows people to understand what they are truly evaluating. They allow evaluators to be consistent. Without this structural guidance we are making it up as we go.
Even if there is not a written rubric, having some kind of structure—especially if it is an in-person interview—helps evaluators stay focused on the correct elements. For example, in this case, we had a handful of questions we talked about beforehand, so every applicant was put up against the same questions of inquiry.
The other thing we did was we structured the review so we had regular breaks. We evaluated five to eight applicants and then did a 5- to 10-minute break before doing another five applications. If you just power through everyone, the first few people you talk about, you have good cognitive energy. The more you discuss, the more depleted that cognitive energy becomes. By time you get to the 20th applicant, good luck to the applicant—everyone is already exhausted. If you are the 45th applicant in a row under discussion, you may as well not even apply because people’s cognitive capacity is significantly reduced. This type of situation is clearly not fair.
Joyce Yen. Credit: UW
Lastly, we spent time in the beginning speaking about how bias can occur in the evaluation process and how we can be alert to that and mitigate it as much as we can. That laid the groundwork for establishing the structure as we did. It also invites people to acknowledge their biases. Research actually shows when you think you are objective, you are actually more prone to bias. It’s good for people to know that going into the process.
LE: What advice do you have for researchers wanting to make a difference in STEM but not really knowing where or how to start?
Yen:The measure we advocate for is called “lead measure,” which is measurable behavior you can enact in an actionable way. For example, for those that say they want to increase diversity in science and engineering, what are the measurable, actionable things you can do that will help move the needle? Easy things are to ask yourself “how many women or people of color do you interact with when you go to a trade meeting?” You can measure that and you can set a goal. Say, “I am going to speak to 12 people of color at my next meeting.” The reason why that makes a difference is because that expands who you think of as a scientist or engineer and who you know in that network of people. When you know different people, you think of them in different situations. The next time you need a speaker for a series, if you have never met any people of color in the field, it is likely you won’t think of a diverse slate of potential speakers.
LE: What are a few initiatives UW ADVANCE has pioneered that are making a difference for women in STEM?
Yen: We have several program and activities that have been going on for almost two decades. The overall umbrella is creating regular opportunity to be in community with people who are at a similar career stage as you. On the ground it looks like regularly occurring workshops, but really it is being in community with people who are at a similar career stage as you and addressing topics that impact your ability to be successful in your position. Diversity, equality and inclusion issues are spoken about as much as possible, basically creating a culture of professional and leadership development that is community- and network-based that boasts resources to help people be successful. It all hinges on the research that has demonstrated women in STEM and people of color have less formal access to this kind of information, as it occurs through ‘old’ channels—these are ‘new’ channels specific to this demographic.